27/1 May 99 [s. Shushenskoye].

I was very glad, [Alexander Nikolaevich], to receive your letter of 27/III, which finally broke your long and stubborn silence. There has indeed accumulated a mass of questions for conversation, but it's not possible to discuss them in detail here, especially on matters of a predominantly literary character.

And now there's the journal besides: without conversations with colleagues one feels too cut off to write. Here only Yulius¹) takes all this entirely close and actively to heart, but with him those damned "great distances" prevent sufficiently detailed discussion.

Let me begin with what now interests and troubles me most—with Bulgakov's articles in issues 1, 2, and 3 of "Nachalo."²) After reading your review of him, I was enormously gladdened to have encountered sympathy on the most essential points—all the more gladdened because from the editorial side it apparently doesn't amount to much to count on sympathy... If Bulgakov's article made "a repellent" impression on you and "a pitiful" one, it drove me literally into a frenzy. To this day, however much I read and reread Bulgakov, I decidedly cannot understand how he could write such an entirely absurd and impossibly indecent in tone article, and how the editorial board thought it possible not to defend itself with at least a single remark from solidarity with such a "thrashing" of Kautsky. I am just as, as you, "convinced that the public is completely (precisely!) confused and bewildered." And how indeed should it not be bewildered, when it is announced to it—on behalf of "contemporary science" (No. 3, p. 34),³) that everything in Kautsky is incorrect, arbitrary, a social miracle, "equally lacking in proper agronomy and proper economics" (No. 1-2) and so forth, while Kautsky is not expounded but directly d i s t o r t e d, and Bulgakov's own views, as some sort of connected system, are completely invisible. If a person had any sense of party spirit, consciousness of responsibility toward all Genossen⁴) and toward their entire program and practical activity—he would not have dared to make such cavalier "attacks" (as you aptly put it), giving nothing himself while merely promising... a scholarly work on "East Elbia"!! He evidently feels himself free from any comradely obligations and responsibility, "free" as an individual representative of professorial science. I do not forget, of course, that under Russian conditions one cannot demand from a journal the admission only of Genossen and the exclusion of all others—but still, such a journal as "Nachalo" is not after all a miscellany that admits Marxism simply out of fashion (à la "Mir Bozhii," "Nauchnoe Obozrenie," etc.),⁵) but an organ of a direction. Therefore for such a journal it would necessarily impose some restraint on learned horsemen-riders and on all "outsiders" generally. The enormous success of "Novoe Slovo"⁶) is explained solely by the fact that the editorial board conducted it precisely as an organ of a direction, not as a miscellany.

I read Kautsky's book even before the appearance of Bulgakov's article and could not find in the latter n o t  a  s i n g l e somewhat meaningful objection against Kautsky, but d i s t o r t i o n s of Kautsky's thoughts and theses—in abundance. For example, what nonsense is Bulgakov's assertion that Kautsky confuses technique and economics, that he proves "the ruination of agriculture" (No. 3, p. 31). Kautsky d i r e c t l y states the opposite (p. 289): that he denies agriculture the tendency of development (No. 3, p. 34), etc.!⁷)

About two weeks ago I wrote and sent to the editorial board my first article "Capitalism in agriculture (on Kautsky's book and on Mr. Bulgakov's article)" and now I'm taking up the second concerning the end of Bulgakov's article.⁸) I fear greatly that P.B. [Struve] will reject it, either citing its large volume (it turns out larger than Bulgakov's article, because I need, in the first place, to refute in a reasoned way such bald and carelessly thrown verdicts as, for example, the claim that Marx was mistaken in teaching about the diminishing ratio in agriculture; in the second place, because it is n e c e s s a r y  t o  e x p o u n d Kautsky), or else on the undesirability of polemic (I naturally did not employ a single abusive expression like those above, and generally tried to ensure that there was nothing personal against Bulgakov. The tone altogether is not sharper than in my article against Tugan-Baranovskii on the theory of markets).⁹) I would be very glad to hear your opinion when you read Kautsky's book and finish with Bulgakov: what exactly do you find in Bulgakov "correct"? and do you believe it would be possible to leave Bulgakov's article in the journal without an answer?

In general all this "new critical current" in Marxism, which Struve and Bulgakov are carried away with (P.B. [Struve] surely for Bulgakov), seems to me extremely suspicious: loud phrases about "criticism" against "dogma" etc.—and absolutely no positive results of criticism.¹⁰) Incidentally, to compose an article à la Bulgakov's required besides "criticism" and sympathies for professorial "contemporary science" also tactlessness to the nth degree.¹¹)

I sent Struve a reply to his article on markets.¹²) My sister [A. I. Elizarova] writes me that this reply will be placed in "Nauchnoe Obozrenie" and that P. B. [Struve] also intends to reply there. I cannot agree with you that "the center of gravity of the question consists in the concrete impossibility of an abstractly conceived proposition" and my chief objection to Mr. P. Bernhardovich [Struve] consists precisely in that he confuses abstract-theoretical and concretely-historical questions. "Concretely impossible" is not only the realization presented by Marx, but also the ground rent presented by him and the average profit presented by him and the equality of wages with the value of labor-power and much else besides. But the impossibility of realization in p u r e form is not at all an objection.¹³) I cannot in any way discern contradictions between his assertions in "Etudes" and in "Nauchnoe Obozrenie," nor likewise the "bourgeois apologeticism" with which Struve so frightened readers.¹⁴) What especially displeased me in his article is the unseemly bringing in of critical philosophy and remarks to the effect that Marx's teaching on value and profit "undoubtedly suffers from contradictoriness." After all, P. B. [Struve] knows perfectly well that this is d i s p u t a b l e—why then sow fog in the head of the public, which h a s  n o t  y e t  r e c e i v e d from any one of the representatives of the "new critical current" a systematic proof of this contradictoriness and its correction?

And Bulgakov's sally (No. 3, p. 34, note) against the theory of Zusammenbruch¹⁵)—without any mention of Bernstein and with the peremptoriness of a scholarly "decree"! I know of the appearance of Bernstein's new book and have ordered it, but I doubt I will receive it.¹⁶) From the article about it in the Frankfurter Zeitung¹⁷) and in "Zhizn" (not a bad journal! The fiction is frankly good and even better than all the rest!),¹⁸) I became fully convinced that I had understood Bernstein's fragmentary articles incorrectly and that he has indeed lied to the point of impossibility, to the point that he must precisely be b u r i e d,¹⁹) as the author of "Beitrage zur Geschichte des Materialismus" expressed it in his open letter to Kautsky. Bernstein's new objections to the materialist understanding of history, etc. (according to "Zhizn"), strike me with their weakness. If P. B. [Struve] is such a passionate defender of Bernstein that he almost "scolds" on his behalf, this is very and very sad, because his "theory" against Zusammenbruch—intolerably narrow for Western Europe—is altogether unsuitable and d a n g e r o u s for Russia. Do you know that it is already being utilized by our "young" (ultra-economists), who in one publication expounded the Stuttgart proceedings in such a way that in them Bernstein, Peus, and others appeared as defenders of "economics, not politics"?²⁰) What does P. B. [Struve] think of such "allies"? If by the successes of ultra-economists you mean the departure of Volgin and his closest comrades, then I know of it; it struck me extremely hard, and I now wonder how things stand there and what the future holds in store. It is terribly harmful, in my opinion, that this dispute with the ultra-economists did not get into c o m p l e t e  a n d  w h o l e form into print: this would have been the only serious means for clarifying the matter and establishing certain precise principled positions. But now there is complete chaos!²¹)

My book has come out and I asked to have it sent to you (I have not yet received it myself). I heard that the Post Scriptum in the preface was delayed, fell into preliminary censorship and "suffered," it seems. I will await your remarks with interest.²²)

*) By the way. Remember how one of our mutual acquaintance in "the beautiful distance" used to mock me viciously and tear me to shreds for calling the materialist understanding of history a "method"? Well, it turns out that Kautsky too is guilty of such a grave sin, employing the same word: "method" ("Zhizn," January, II, p. 53). Do you have news of this acquaintance? Is his health better? Is there hope that he will write?²³)

I ordered Karelin's book and read it before receiving it from you. I liked it very much; it's devilishly annoying that they mutilated it! Won't you write a review of it?²⁴)

One acquaintance sent me "Journal Notes" of A. [Potresov] (about "heritage" and "heirs"). Interesting: was further polemic with me intended in the continuation or not?²⁵) A. [Potresov]'s article pleased me extremely; from the excised version he suffered greatly. The disagreements between us I, I confess, do not see: you take a n o t h e r question—not about how the disciples relate to Russian democracy in general, whether they renounce it (I wrote e x c l u s i v e l y about this), but about what were the relationships between different kinds of democrats in the good old days. I was interested only in Mikhailovsky's error that we are renouncing democracy in general,—but you take—a n o t h e r one of his errors, the "glossing over" of essential important distinctions in the "heritage." I saw Maslov's note in No. 3 of "Nauchnoe Obozrenie," directed against me, but it, I confess, did not interest me.²⁶) Yes, incidentally: the excised version of A. [Potresov]'s article confirmed my opinion that taking a more vivid heir than Skaldin would be "inconvenient" (sad confirmation!!). In general, in my view, the tone of the journal is "deathlike." If so, then the end and death are merely a matter of time. After all this is simply speculation on helplessness and procrastination in that department, which, etc. One could and should hold one's tongue without harm and not without benefit to the cause. Truly, compared to the contemporary tone our "Materials" could be a model of "moderation" and "solidity"...²⁷)

I shake your hand. Write more often if you don't mind, otherwise I have absolutely no one to learn journal news from.

I'm sending by registered wrapper "Historische Berechtigung."²⁸) Don't think, please, that I am careless in returning books: you didn't write about the time and I therefore didn't refuse comrades when they asked to borrow it to read. I will be very grateful for the end of Karelin.

Don't you have any German reviews of Kautsky? I read only in the Frankfurter Zeitung—angry and empty à la Bulgakov.

The journal issues in general I like very much. They are excellently edited. Have you read Gvozdev's book and what do you think of it?²⁹)

---

**NOTES:**

1) Yulius—Martov, Y. O., then serving his exile in Turukhansk.

2) Articles by Bulgakov "On the Question of Capitalist Evolution of Agriculture" (*Nachalo* 1899, Nos. 1-2, 3), written concerning K. Kautsky's book, *Agrarfrage* (The Agrarian Question).

3) These and the following references to numbers and pages mean *Nachalo* journal numbers and pages.

4) Genossen—comrades.

5) à la = in the manner of, like.

6) Journals of that time where, alongside authors of various directions, Marxists were also published.

7) *Novoe Slovo* [New Word] was the first militant legal Marxist organ. In total, eight issues managed to come out in 1897. That same year the journal was banned by censorship. Lenin also participated in it, publishing, among other things, his articles "On the Characteristics of Economic Romanticism."

8) Lenin here cites the page according to the 1st German edition. The corresponding place in the Russian edition of 1899 is found on p. 340; in the 1906 ed. on pp. 265-266.

9) This phrase of the letter makes it possible to establish the time of writing these articles: it falls on April-May 1899. Sent to *Nachalo*, these articles did not manage to appear in it due to its cessation in June 1899, and with a delay of several months were printed in the journal *Zhizn*, Nos. 1 and 2 for 1900 (they are placed in Vol. IX of the Collected Works).

10) "A Note on the Question of the Theory of Markets," written at the end of 1898 and published in *Nauchnoe Obozrenie*, No. 1, for 1899. Placed in Vol. II of the Collected Works.

11) Lenin has in mind the quite clearly defined tendency of representatives of legal Marxism, especially Bulgakov and Struve, toward Kant's critical philosophy.

12) Non plus ultra—to the extreme degree, to the limit.

13) This refers to P. Struve's article "On the Question of Markets under Capitalist Production (Concerning Bulgakov's Book and Ilyin's Article)," placed in *Nauchnoe Obozrenie* for 1899, No. 1. Vladimir Ilyich answered it with the article "Once Again on the Question of the Theory of Realization," written, as it becomes clear from this letter, no later than April 1899; it was published only in the August issue of that journal. Placed in Vol. II of the Collected Works, pp. 480-496.

14) Lenin has in mind one of the positions of Struve's article, formulated thus in the author's own conclusions: "A self-sufficient, finally developed capitalist society cannot exist, and moreover, such a society is unimaginable, since in it surplus value would cease to be capitalized or, in other words, expanded reproduction would become impossible. A stationary, i.e., based on simple reproduction, capitalist society contradicts the idea of capitalism, whose moving principle is not immediate consumption but the self-increase of capital. The representation of a self-sufficient capitalist society (or system), and the schematic depiction according to Marx of the realization of the product in this system for understanding the real process of capital development gives nothing beyond what is given by the elementary truth: products in the process of realization or social exchange of substances are always exchanged for products. In clarifying historical questions of the development of capitalism, the representation of a self-sufficient capitalist society turns out to be not only barren but directly misleading, insofar as it puts an abstract and unreal schema in place of a complex real process." (*Nauchnoe Obozrenie*, No. 1, 1899, p. 63.)

15) Lenin has in mind the following places from Struve's article:

"... I merely state that a perfectly just argument by Ilyin with most expressive quotations from Marx... completely throws overboard that theory of realization, of which Ilyin himself is such a eloquent and energetic defender in other cases." (*Nauchnoe Obozrenie* 1, 1899, p. 52.)

"... Bulgakov (as well as Ilyin) ascribed to Marx the apologetic-bourgeois Say-Ricardo theory..." (Ibid., p. 52).

"Tugan-Baranovskii, Bulgakov and Ilyin expound the bourgeois-apologetic theory..." (Ibid., p. 57).

In his reply article "Once Again on the Question of the Theory of Realization," Lenin responds to Struve as follows:

"Struve says that I ascribed to Marx the apologetic-bourgeois Say-Ricardo theory (52)—the theory of harmony between production and consumption (51)—a theory standing in glaring contradiction with Marx's teaching on the evolution and final disappearance of capitalism (51-52); that therefore my "perfectly just argument" that Marx both in Vol. II and in Vol. III emphasized the contradiction inherent in capitalism between unlimited expansion of production and limited consumption of the popular masses, "completely throws overboard that theory of realization... of which" I am "in other cases" the "defender."

And this assertion of Struve is just as false and just as based on the above-indicated misunderstanding into which he fell.

Where did Struve get the idea that I understand by the theory of realization not the analysis of the process of reproduction and circulation of all social capital, but a theory saying only that products are exchanged for products, a theory teaching of harmony between production and consumption? Struve could not show by analyzing my articles that I understood the theory of realization in the second sense, because I directly and definitively said that I understand the theory of realization precisely in the first sense. In the article: "On the Characteristics of Economic Romanticism," in the paragraph devoted to clarifying the error of Smith and Sismondi, it is said: "The question is precisely h o w realization occurs, t h a t  i s, the replacement of all parts of the social product. Therefore the starting point in reasoning on social capital and income—or, what is the same, on realization of the product in capitalist society—should be the division... of means of production and objects of consumption" (*Etudes*, 17). "The question of realization consists in analyzing the replacement of all parts of the social product both according to value and according to material form" (ib., 26). Does not Struve repeat the very same thing, speaking—as if against me—that the theory in question "shows the mechanism of realization..., insofar as such realization is carried out" (*N. Ob.*, 62)? Do I contradict t h a t theory of realization which I defend when I say that realization occurs "only amidst difficulties, amidst constant fluctuations which become stronger as capitalism grows, amidst fierce competition, etc." (*Etudes*, 27)?—when I say that the populist theory "not only shows a lack of understanding of realization, but furthermore contains, what is more, an extremely superficial understanding of the contradictions inherent in this realization" (26-27)?—when I say that realization of the product, occurring not so much at the expense of objects of consumption as at the expense of means of production, "is, of course, a contradiction, but precisely such a contradiction as exists in reality, which flows from the very essence of capitalism" (24), which "fully corresponds to the historical mission of capitalism and its specific social structure: the first (i.e., the mission) 'consists precisely in the development of society's productive forces (production for production); the second' (i.e., the social structure of capitalism) 'excludes its utilization by the mass of the population'" (20)?" (*N. O.* 1899, No. 8, p. 157). Reprinted in Vol. II of Collected Works, 1st ed. (pp. 487-489).

16) Zusammenbruch—socialist revolution. In the note to which Lenin points, Bulgakov wrote: "Psychologically, the possibility of such faith is based on the representation of a social Zusammenbruch, which would suddenly renew and change the contemporary economic organization. This representation is incompatible with the contemporary state of science and above all with the materialist understanding of history. It suffices to reread the corresponding places from the applied part of Kautsky's book to be convinced of how much the theory of Zusammenbruch hovers over all representations of the future fate of agriculture." Earlier Bernstein developed these ideas somewhat.

17) This refers to the book: Bernstein, E., *Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemocratie* (Bernstein, E. *Preconditions of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy*), released in its first edition in Stuttgart in January 1899.

18) *Frankfurter Zeitung*. Unable to follow the workers' movement in Germany through social-democratic organs, which were not permitted into Russia, Vladimir Ilyich had to content himself with materials about it provided by the named large bourgeois-democratic newspaper, which he apparently subscribed to.

19) *Zhizn* [Life]—a journal of that time that published Marxists. In its fiction section, Gorky, Gusev-Orenburg, Veresaev, Chirikov were published. For the period January-April 1899, there were published there, among other things: "On the Devil," "Kirilka" and "Foma Gordeev" by Gorky; "The End of Andrei Ivanovich" by Veresaev, and "Foreigners" by Chirikov. Here too were published legal Marxists, and Lenin was published. From Western Marxists of that time, K. Kautsky and E. Bernstein were published here, among others. The article from *Zhizn* in question: "A New Book on Historical Materialism" by S. Steinberg, published in the March issue of the journal for 1899 (*Zhizn*, No. III, 1899, March, pp. 358-371). As for Bernstein's own articles, Vladimir Ilyich could have become acquainted with them from the German *Neue Zeit*.

20) Begraben—bury, destroy. This expression: "we must bury Bernstein" was used by Plekhanov in his "Open Letter" to Kautsky, published in *Sachsische Arbeiter Zeitung* (*Saxon Workers' Gazette*) for 1898, Nos. 253-255, under the title: "What should we thank him for?" (*Plekhanov's Works*, Vol. XI). Lenin refers to this letter, having received information about it, apparently from the same *Frankfurter Zeitung*.

21) "Beitrage zur Geschichte des Materialismus"—"Essays on the History of Materialism." The author of the Essays—Plekhanov—is not named by surname, apparently for censorship considerations.

22) These words apparently have in mind Plekhanov and relate to conversations conducted with him by Vladimir Ilyich in 1895, during his trip to Switzerland. Lenin's reference relates to K. Kautsky's article "Materialist Understanding and the Psychological Factor," in translation placed in *Zhizn* for 1899, No. II (January). Reprinted in the collection *Historical Materialism*, edited by Semkovsky.

23) Lenin has in mind the account by a certain P. Khramov of the Stuttgart Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party (October 1898), published in No. 4 of *Rabochaya Mysl* [Workers' Thought]. We cite from it the place directly indicated by Vladimir Ilyich: "The most burning question in the German workers' party is the question of 'tactics'; during the first three days all disputes revolved around this question. The essence of the matter is as follows. The German workers' party until very recently was a party predominantly political in character. In its struggle against the propertied classes it placed first the struggle for political freedom; during agitation it pointed mainly to political questions. As a battle cry, the 'seizure of political power' was put forward. The struggle for raising wages, for shortening the working day, etc., in general, economic struggle was conducted by workers, of course, at all times very energetically—German workers have enormous fighting organizations to which about 350,000 people belong. But all economic struggle was conducted as if incidentally. Until very recently (until 1896) there were few in the workers' party who gave economic struggle equal importance with political struggle. Recently the question has arisen of changing tactics in the sense that more attention should be paid to economic struggle, to the urgent, immediate interests of broader masses of the population.

Auer at one Berlin meeting as long ago as last year stated that political and economic struggle have equal significance for the working class. Some supporters of economic struggle—Bernstein, Peus, Vollmar, Heine—went even further; they declare that in general one should place first the immediate interests of the population, and 'final goals'—the seizure of political power and socialism—will follow as a result of such struggle; that emphasizing 'final goals' is not even scientific, since life constantly develops and it is impossible to predict what forms it will assume.

Such is the essence of the dispute."

24) This passage refers to the split in the foreign "Union of Russian Social-Democrats" and has in mind the refusal of Plekhanov ("Volgin") and the entire "Emancipation of Labor" Group to edit the Union's publications. This took place in November 1898 at the Union Congress.

25) This refers to Lenin's book: "The Development of Capitalism in Russia." "The P. S. in the preface"—two pages appended by Lenin to the preface of this book and devoted to a concise exposition and a declaration of solidarity with the views developed by Kautsky in his "Agrarian Question." This Post-Scriptum was apparently written and sent to print by Lenin after the whole book had been submitted to press. To what extent it suffered from censorship—in view of the absence of the manuscript—it is impossible to judge.

26) N. Karelin. *Jean-Jacques Rousseau. An Essay on the Characterization of His Social Ideas*. Struve edition. The author of the book was V. I. Zasulich. A review of it was written by M. Tugan-Baranovskii. (*Nachalo*, May, 1899.)

27) "Journal Notes" by A. P.—an article by A. N. Potresov, bearing the subheading: On "Heritage" and "Heirs," published in the April issue of *Nachalo*, but excised from it by censorship. Apparently the excised pages were sent to Lenin. Potresov's article touched in content on Lenin's article "Are We Renouncing Our Heritage?" (see Vol. I of Collected Works). The article contained no polemic with Lenin—in it there is merely a mention of Lenin's article: "Vl. Ilyin in his recently released very interesting and valuable book *Economic Essays and Articles* devoted one of his articles to the above-named question, namely—the article 'What Heritage Are We Renouncing?' While agreeing with its author in much, we consider it useful to approach the same theme, so to speak, from a different angle and to outline—merely outline—s o m e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h, i n o u r o p i n i o n, c o u l d t h r o w l i g h t o n t h e s t a t e o f o u r c o n t e m p o r a r y j o u r n a l i s m." (Cited according to *Essays on Russian Intelligentsia*, ed. 1906, pp. 76-77)—but was undoubtedly provoked by the author's disagreements with Lenin, which found reflection in the preceding letter. The "literary-political continuation" of this disagreement, which we mentioned in note 2 to the preceding letter, consisted in the fact that six years later, in connection with the party's split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and concerning this split, A. N. Potresov returned in *Iskra* to Lenin's article, attempting to draw from it proof of the "narrowness" and lack of historical feeling of the "rationalism" of Leninist Marxism. In doing this, the contributor to the Menshevik *Iskra* prudently kept silent, of course, about the circumstances well known to him that forced Vladimir Ilyich to stop at Skaldin as a representative of bourgeois liberalism of the 1860s and about the caveats that Vladimir Ilyich introduced into his article and which he emphasized and repeated in this letter. Potresov's polemical sally was made by him in the article "Our Misadventures," published in Nos. 98, 107, and 111 of *Iskra* for 1905 and reprinted in his *Essays* (see pp. 264-265). Vladimir Ilyich did not answer it.

28) P. Maslov's article: "Idealization of National Economy" in No. 3 of *Nauchnoe Obozrenie* for 1899. The note read: "The representatives of the interests of producers as such inherited from the ideologues of mismanaged production, having developed the basic ideas of Chernyshevsky and given them scientific foundation. Therefore one cannot in any way agree with Vlad. Ilyin (*Economic Essays and Articles*), who considers the ideology of the unmanaged to be 'heritage' from the bourgeois enlighteners of the 1860s. From bourgeois 'enlighteners' it was the bourgeois 'enlighteners' who could have inherited. Perhaps it is not a great honor—to be reckoned as heir to enlighteners worthy of all respect—but what can be done when what is common between bourgeois and non-bourgeois enlighteners is only that both are progressists and look in the same direction—to the west?!" (*Nauchnoe Obozrenie* 1899, III, p. 632).

29) Rathlosigkeit—helplessness.

30) *Materials for the Characterization of Our Economic Development*—a collection of articles by Lenin, Plekhanov, Struve, Potresov, P. Skvorcov and others, released in May 1895, but destroyed by censorship. V. I. Lenin placed here under the pseudonym K. Tulin his article "Economic Content of Populism and Criticism of It in Mr. Struve's Book" (see Vol. I of Collected Works).

31) I.e., a booklet of the journal *Neue Zeit* with an article by P. Axelrod, later published in Russian under the title "The Mutual Relationship of Liberal and Socialist Democracy."

32) R. Gvozdev (Zimmerman). *Kulachism-Usury. Its Socio-Economic Significance*. Garin edition, SPB. 1898. Lenin gave a review of this book in the journal *Nachalo*, No. 3, March 1899. Reprinted in Vol. I of Collected Works.